Question about "sola scriptura"

[kepha31]

In the Old Testament monarchy the Queen of the Davidic Kingdom was the Queen Mother. The Kings, for reasons of state and human weakness, had many wives, none of whom fittingly could be called Queen. That honor was reserved for the mother of the King, whose authority far surpassed the many "queens" married to the king. We see this is the role Bathsheba played with respect to King Solomon and the occasions when the Queen Mother acted as regent on behalf of juvenile successors to the throne.

The role of the Queen Mother, therefore, is a prophetic type of the Kingdom role of Mary, just as the role of the Davidic King is a prophetic type of the Kingdom role of Jesus. Jesus inherited the Kingdom promised to David, who was told that one of his descendants would rule forever. The angel Gabriel revealed this fact to Mary at her Annunciation,

 

[Mountainmike]

Which nowhere contests or challenges what I said, other than your factual error, Jesus founded the church and appointed Peter as steward over it.
No surprises there , God always did appoint a leader on earth , for example take Abraham, who god asked to take the name " father"

And the Legacy of the false doctrine of sola scriptura , which is wholly contradicted by scripture itself, and invented out of thin air at the time of the reformation is the cause of endless schism. Luther regretted it in later life that his sola had resulted in " every milkmaid has their own doctrine". Too late to put pandora back in the box.

And in addition to my last comment on this post of yours I should say that Peter, which your church claims as its founder (rather than Christ, as I say) was married...I Corinthians 9:5 which includes the other apostles...contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church which does not allow a priest to marry. It can be clearly seen by that all-illuminating Word that this is a false teaching and a destructive heresy...
I Timothy 4:1-3:
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Yes, those who are sola scriptura know the Truth and those who are not are just stabbing at it from the dark.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your premise appears to be that praying to Our Lady is the same as worshiping some pagan deity. Putting aside the conflation of two entirely unrelated issues, I find your premise flawed.

For starters, I truly don't know how many Marian devotions I personally have prayed. I only converted to Catholicism relatively recently but I participated in a few Rosaries in my Anglican days. That along with Rosaries in which I've participated in my FSSP parish as well as my daily prayer routines which include Alma Redemptoris Mater and Hail Mary (or sometimes I substitute Angelus for Hail Mary but they're basically the same) means I've likely prayed at least 1,000 Marian devotions just in the last couple of years.

As far as trivia is concerned, nobody should be impressed with the 1,000 devotion figure. Assuming that's even accurate, there are people who easily double, triple or more that number. I'm not bragging. I'm setting the table.

All of this is to say that I have not experienced demonic oppression in my home or in my life. Now, I'm one person in one place at one time in history. If, as you say, prayers to Our Lady do somehow result in demonic attack of some sort, surely I'm a statistical fluke. And yet, I've never heard of any Catholic experiencing oppression with a Marian devotion.

Pope John Paul II apparently had a very strong Marian devotion. He was a famous public figure. You'd think he'd have made for an attractive target for demonic attack. And yet there are no credible reports of such a thing. I haven't even heard of an incredible report.

This is true of billions of Catholics through history. None of them are said to have suffered demonic attack due to any level of Marian devotion.

So right there your premise seems logically flawed. If asking Our Lady to pray for us is somehow inherently dangerous, well, at a minimum the "danger" as you've described it seems incredibly unlikely.

But more broadly, part of my Marian devotion is asking Our Lady to pray for me that I can resist certain sins that are unspeakably tempting for me. And this is where the rubber meets the road on my conception of Marian devotion. Because the sins I'm tempted by are, I would assume, the very sins the devil would want me to experience. I'll spare you the details because it's my cross and my burden and I share it only with whom I will. My point is that I'm tempted by sins the devil is especially famous for promoting.

My Marian devotion has helped me resist those temptations.

Ask yourself: Will the devil lift a finger to help me resist sin? Again, I should assume he probably won't. And yet I receive spiritual reinforcement to resist my sins anyway. Since the devil probably won't help me resist those sins, that leaves only one other source.

As an alternative explanation for my spiritual reinforcement, in theory it's possible that I'm lying to you. But, with all due respect to all members of CF, you're all a bunch of nameless, faceless strangers to me. I know nothing and care even less about your opinions of me. Putting morality aside (eg, I believe lying is a sin), it's not worth my time to lie to you. I can't be expected to lie to people for whose opinions I care nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that many people on this forum agree with me. But in the end I don't need and won't seek their approval. So why the heck would I bother telling fibs?

Another alternative is that it's all in my imagination. Perhaps I believe I'm being strengthened after my petitions to Our Lady. This is possible. But why would my temptation be reinforced by a practice about which I was initially skeptical? I said I'm Catholic but I never said I'm any good at it. In particular, I had to be convinced with my Marian devotion. Why would a devotional practice about which I was skeptical be psychologically effective in helping me resist my temptations?

Considering the abject lack of evidence (or even substantial rumors) as to the dangers of petitioning Our Lady combined with my own positive results, to me the shortest distance between two points is that there is no danger in Marian devotion. On the contrary, the practice has many positive spiritual benefits to it.

Having said that, I would assume nobody in this thread is dismissing the danger of necromancy, divination, summoning or other magicks. Those are obviously incredibly dangerous and should be avoided at all costs for all the obvious reasons.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I am talking about prayers specifically to the 'queen of heaven', not to Marry. Use the title of a pagan goddess of witchcraft and it is she that would attempt to answer that prayer. That makes it witchcraft.

I've only been able to find one Marian devotion that makes reference to the Queen of Heaven without also specifying Our Lady by name at some point in the prayer.

Even if there were numerous such prayers that referenced the Queen of Heaven title without invoking her by name, it still wouldn't alter my basic premise that many millions of people have prayed that one prayer through history to no ill effect.

Frankly, but with respect, it appears to me as though you've found a conclusion and then gone looking for evidence. Considering the number of Catholics now and through history who surely must have invoked Our Lady exclusively by her Queen of Heaven title, I simply cannot accept that doing so somehow poses grave spiritual danger.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that while the subject of demonology does somewhat interest me, I don't claim to be an expert. And I tend to be suspicious of anybody who does claim expertise. Having said that, I have strong reason to believe that invoking a demon's name is potentially very risky. Actual demonologists (Adam Blai, for example) have said that saying a demon's name out loud could have some very negative ramifications (which is why I tend not to do that). So in principle I believe you have a point here.

However, what I do not believe you have done is (A) sufficiently demonstrate that speaking a demon's title (if applicable) poses the same level of risk as speaking his actual name or (B) that notwithstanding, petitioning Our Lady by addressing her as Queen of Heaven (and nothing else) is spiritually dangerous.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Actual demonologists (Adam Blai, for example) have said that saying a demon's name out loud could have some very negative ramifications (which is why I tend not to do that).

Link?

Psalm 95:5 LXX declares "the gods of the gentiles are demons" (also in the Vulgate; see the Challoner Douay Rheims), and if his argument is true, merely mentioning the names of our neighboring planets, or various automobiles, aircraft, and other products, would risk demonic posession.

My own view is that one cannot become posessed if one has been chrismated and follows a healthy spiritual life, partaking regularly of the sacred mysteries.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Link?

Psalm 95:5 LXX declares "the gods of the gentiles are demons" (also in the Vulgate; see the Challoner Douay Rheims), and if his argument is true, merely mentioning the names of our neighboring planets, or various automobiles, aircraft, and other products, would risk demonic posession.

My own view is that one cannot become posessed if one has been chrismated and follows a healthy spiritual life, partaking regularly of the sacred mysteries.

Apologies in advance but I cannot remember where he said it. He did the media circuit for a few months (a year?) at the behest of his bishop. I believe he said it in one of the following:

These were the only two results for Blai in my YouTube history so I assume he said it in one of these... and he possibly added a nuance that slipped my mind.

One such nuance is a distinction between full possession of one's body vs. infestation of one's home. I make no representations as to what the requirements for either of those things are. As I'm sure you can understand, my policy is to study enough demonology to be relatively informed so that I can avoid anything that might pose a risk. The point here is I shouldn't be at all surprised to discover that there's a significantly lower threshold for a dark force to infest one's home than to possess him... which may have been Blai's own contention for all I can remember.

Since this post is public and we're far off topic as relates to Sola Scriptura anyway, I do recommend viewing the above two videos with Adam Blai for anybody with an interest in demonology who wishes for a safe way to study and learn. I'm sure he doesn't tell everything he knows but his remarks are very informative. It should be understood that Blai works with his diocese in investigating these matters and possesses a depth of knowledge which far surpasses anything else you're likely to find from other sources.